The Godfather, Part III

I'm a huge fan of the first two Godfather films. They are both in my top ten of all time. So, when the Godfather, Part III was released in December 1990, I went on opening weekend and sat upright in my seat, as if I were about to see a reunion of the Beatles. I thought it was a pretty good film, certainly not equal to the first two, but fun none the less.

I hadn't seen the film since then, almost 17 years, but a few Christmases ago I got the Godfather DVD set, which includes this film. I watched it again over the weekend (I re-watched the first two films as well, over the previous few weeks) and was struck how pale an imitation this was of the original magic. If ever there was a film that should have never been made, it's this one.

It's almost as if the film weren't directed by Francis Coppola, and instead by some new guy who was just trying to copy him. But Coppola did direct it, at a time when his powers were diminished. Maybe his heart just wasn't in it. I watched the DVD with his commentary running alongside, and it seemed he was interested in the project--the only complaint he had with the studio was the title, as he wanted to call it The Death of Michael Corleone.

What's most irksome is that he uses his template from the first two films and falls vastly short. We get the opening scene set at some sort of ceremony (a wedding in Part 1, a first communion in Part II), this time Michael is receiving an award from the Catholic Church for charity. During the party we are introduced to the characters and there is some backroom skulduggery. We also get the murder during a festival of some kind (the baptism in Part 1, the murder of Fanucci during San Genaro in Part II). In Part III, Coppola re-uses the San Genaro fest for the murder of Joey Zasa, with the absurd spectacle of the hooded bearers of the Madonna whipping out machine guns. There is also the equally absurd helicopter attack on the commission in Atlantic City.

Also troubling are the characters. The character of Michael seems to have made the same changes as Al Pacino. It just doesn't seem like the same character. And with all the family members running around, it doesn't seem likely that Vincent, Sonny's bastard son, played by Andy Garcia, would rise to the top. Coppola notes that the character of the bastard is very Shakespearean, which is true, but this stuff isn't remotely as good as Shakespeare (while the first two films are--Part I is kind of like Hamlet, Part II like King Lear).

Then there is the Sophia Coppola problem. I'm glad that she has gone to be a screenwriter and director of some note, so that this role isn't the thing she is best known for any more. Coppola speaks frankly about his decision to cast her, and says he doesn't regret it (she replaced Winona Ryder, who dropped out at the last moment). But clearly it pained him to see how she was universally criticized, and compares the plight to the characters in the movie, saying that it was her they came after, not him. He doesn't own up to the responsibility that he cast an actress who was not ready to play the part.

The film has some good parts--the ending death scene at the opera is very moving (though the coda, with Michael keeling over, the ubiquitous orange of death at his feet, seems tacked on). But the film did sort of come across like a Beatles reunion might--men who were once on the very top, now older and slower and not as relevant, going through the motions.